ANIL KUMAR Vs. HAZARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging judgment dated 5.10.1999 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul. The Appellate Authority has held that installation of a tin shed in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not constitute a material impairment to the value and utility of the tenanted premises.

(2.) FACTS in brief which are necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the instant petition are that the landlord-petitioner sought ejectment of the tenant-respondent 1 by pleading that he has broken the projection of the demised premises and has also removed the Chokhat (wooden frame for the doors) of the stair case along with the doors. It is further alleged that the tenant-respondent has also installed a tin shed on the demised premises along with the water tap without the permission of the landlord-petitioner. The aforementioned acts are alleged to be sufficient for impairing the value and utility of the demised premises as alleged by the landlord-petitioner.

(3.) THE Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord-petitioner has failed to prove that 'Chokhat' or the doors were removed from the stair case of the demised premises by the tenant-respondent. He further found that any almirah or chimney have been constructed by him. The question with regard to erection of a tin shed was answered in favour of the landlord-petitioner because it was found that there is no reference of the tin shed in the rent note Ex.PW2/A which led to the conclusion that no tin shed was in existence on 16.12.1974 when the rent note was executed by the tenant-respondent in favour of the landlord-petitioner. It was further found that the tin shed was a temporary shed erected by tenant-respondent without the consent of the landlord-petitioner. However, the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant-respondent on the ground of erecting a tin shed which was found to have impaired the value and utility of the demised premises.